The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation, observing that it cannot be used to unsettle rights arising from a registered transaction, especially in the absence of prima facie fraud or irregularity. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 404]

The division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Deepak Khot observed:

"A PIL cannot be permitted to unsettle rights flowing from registered transactions which have remained operative and acted upon for more than five decades, particularly when no prima facie fraud, illegality or continuing public injury has been established. The prayer for investigation would, in substance, require this Court to reopen and adjudicate the validity of long-standing transactions and competing claims of title, which is impermissible in the present proceedings".

A local journalist from the daily newspaper Hindu Sahastradhara filed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the authorities to conduct an enquiry into the ownership and revenue entries concerning certain land in Village Subkhar Maal in Nagar Parishad Dindori. 

Per the petitioner, the Misal Bandobast of 1929-30 and Adhikar Abhilekh of 1954-55 were recorded as government grazing land, and the petitioner alleged that private respondents, in collusion with revenue authorities, fraudulently manipulated revenue entries and illegally mutated the subject land to construct and operate a college run by Rama Devi Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti. 

The State's counsel argued that the suit land was recorded as waste land in the old revenue records of 1929-30, but part of the land was recorded as grazing land in 1954-55. The remaining portion of the land was recorded in the names of different agriculturists as Bhumiswami.

The State further relied on the inquiry report, noting that the concerned portion of the land was not recorded as Government Grazing Land. 

The private respondent argued that the disputed land was recorded in revenue records for several decades. The private respondent also represented registered sale deeds showing that their ancestors had purchased the said land in 1965. 

In 2006, Badri Prasad Bilaiya gifted the relevant portion to Rama Devi Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti. The respondents also showed inquiry reports demonstrating that the land has not been reserved as Government Grazing Land since 1959. 

The court noted that the petitioner failed to establish any prima facie case warranting interference. Per the record, there was a continuous chain of transfer of the disputed land. The bench noted, 

"the land continued to remain in the names of successors of the original purchasers and was subjected to partition proceedings under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, pursuant to which new sub- divisions were carved out". 

The bench further noted that respondent no. 8 (private respondent) was the record holder of the concerned land and the land was thereafter diverted for educational purposes by the Tehsildar under Section 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code. 

The bench further noted that the record does not reveal any "clandestine usurpation of Government land". It was further stated that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent material to demonstrate that the aforesaid sale deeds, mutation, or partition proceedings were brought about using fraud or collusion. 

The bench also noted, "From perusal of record, it is found that the petition has been engineered on a report prepared by the Revenue Inspector on publication of news item by a local newspaper of which petitioner is an editor. That itself shows the seriousness of public injury. However, resultantly the Committee constituted by the Collector found that the land in question is not a Govt. land". 

The bench further reiterated that the PIL jurisdiction must be exercised with great care and circumspection and cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for private grievance under the guise of public interest. 

Accordingly, the court noted that no ground for interference was made out and therefore dismissed the petition. 

For Petitioner: Advocates Harry Bamoriya and Rohit Manepag

For State: Government Advocate Siddharth Singh Chouhan 

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma with Advocates Divya Krishna Bilaiya, Deepak Sahu and Aqsa Mukarram